M/s Vodafone Mobile Services Limited V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)

ITTA/764/2017

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Vodafone Mobile Services Limited appealing against an order from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, which was itself an appeal against a decision by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Hyderabad. The core issue was the classification of certain transactions by Vodafone, which were treated as 'commission' by the tax authorities, whereas Vodafone contended they were 'sales'. The Supreme Court had previously decided a similar issue in Bharati Cellular Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, favoring the assessees. Both parties acknowledged that the Supreme Court's decision was applicable to the case at hand. Consequently, the High Court set aside the earlier orders and allowed the appeal in favor of Vodafone.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 752823 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-09-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Bharati Cellular Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act '1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: A V A KARTIKEYA
• Keywords: Commission; Income Tax; Sale; Supreme Court judgment; Bharati Cellular Ltd.
• Section: 260A

Judgement Text

"[ 3411 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 764 OF 20'17 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260 A of the lncome Tax Act '1961 against the order dated 29-09-2017 on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Benches - A, Hyderabad in l.T.A.No.1402lHydl2015 for Assessment Year 2012-13 preferred against the order dated 09-10-2015 on the file of Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-8, Hyderabad in ITTA No' O414rcI(A)-BlHyd/2015-16 preferred against the Order dated 14-11-2014 in TAN.No.HYDH00652B on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of lncome-Tax, TDS circle-l5(2), Hyderabad. Between: M/s Vodafone N/obile Services Limited, Limited), 1-10-178, Varun Towers-ll, 6th 5000'16. (Formerlv M/S Vodafone South ' FLoor, ' Begumpet, HYderabad- ...Appellant AND Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax (TDS), Circle -15(2), Hyderabad. ...Respondent l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(ITTAMP. NO:752OF 20171 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondent not to take any coercive steps for the recovery of the balance alleged demand, pending disposal of the above appeal Counsel for the Appellant : Sri A V A Siva Kartikeya Counsel for the Respondent: Sri A Rama Krishna Reddy representing Sri Radha Krishan (Sr SC For lT DEPT) The Court delivered the following: Judgment I I I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESIIWAR RAO I.T.T.A.No.764 OF 2Ol7 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Justice Sujoy Paul) Sri A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel ior the appellant, Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. With the consent, finally heard. 3. karned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharati Cellular Ltd., v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Taxl submits that singular point involved in this matter is no more res integra and curtains are finally drawn by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case. It is submitted that the stand of the petitioner was the activity in question is a sale, whereas the respondents are treating it to be \"commission\". Since, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided the aforesaid point in favour of assessees, the impugned order may be set aside. 4 . Learned counsel for the respondent fairly submitted that singular point above indeed covered by the recent judgment in Bharati Cellular Ltd's case supra. 5. Resultantly, the impugned order is set aside. I t ' lzazqrcz rrR 247 (sc) 2 6. Accordingly, thc Appcal is al1owed. No costs. Interlocutorv applications, il any pending, shall also stand closed. Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI N OFFICER The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Benches - A, Hyderabad The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-8, Hyderabad The Deputy Commissioner of lncome-Tax, TDS circle-15(2), Hyderabad One CC to Sri A V A Siva Kartikeya, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Radha Krishan (Sr SC For lT DEPT), [OPUC] Two CD Copies I To, ADt(gh oL(,? 1 2 3 4 A tl I HIGII-I COURT DATED:0310912024 JUDGMENT lTTA.No.764 of 2017 ALLOWING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS F_O TA tl 1 t_ s (. (/ 0 2 L c C, (n 2W t:u r)A l cH @^(fr\" "